Posted on 05/16/2006 5:21:21 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
President Bush's plan for a "comprehensive approach" to immigration, outlined in a primetime speech last night, took one step forward today as the Senate rejected a call to secure the nation's borders before addressing other immigration-related concerns.
In a 55-40 vote, the Senate dismissed an amendment by Sen. Johnny Isakson, R-Ga, to bar the federal government from altering the status of any illegal immigrant until every border security provision in the immigration bill had been implemented and the Homeland Security secretary certified the border is secure.
Isakson said anything less than an approach that put border security first amounted to "a wink and a nod one more time to those who would come here" illegally.
A supporter of the proposal, Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn., said Congress has "no business passing a comprehensive immigration bill without making sure, first, that the border will be secure."
"Upholding the rule of law on our border is as important as defending our freedom in Iraq," he said. "A nation that loses control of its own borders is a nation that is not likely to exist for long.”
But supporters of the comprehensive bill before the Senate argued Isakson's approach would be self-defeating.
"We have to have a comprehensive approach if we're going to gain control of the borders," said Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.
The bill's supporters, nevertheless, are offering an alternative to Isakson's amendment that says any changes in immigration policy can proceed if the president declares they are in the nation's security interests.
At a news conference today with Australian Prime Minister John Howard, the president restated his vision.
"The objective is, on the one hand, protect our borders; and, on the other hand, never lose sight of the thing that makes America unique which is, we're a land of immigrants and that we're not going to discriminate against people," Bush said.
The president told the nation last night he has authorized deployment of up to 6,000 National Guard troops to states along the Mexican border.
Officials have emphasized the Guard forces would not engage in law enforcement, but would serve as a support to federal Border Patrol agents.
The president acknowledged in his speech last night, "We do not yet have full control of the border, and I am determined to change that."
He insisted, however, that the deployment is temporary and the U.S. "is not going to militarize the southern border."
This is the worst racism I've seen since Bull Connor.
Kennedy is the only one with a good excuse ~ he's just looking for new girls.
The Architect of the 1986 Immigration Reform. Good work, Ted.
Well, under this Congress and administration we've lost to name three...
1) Soveriegnty
2) Free Speech
3) Right to interrogate terrorists by any force necessary
I will be voting AGAINST John Warner in VA, and will urge others to do the same the next chance I get.
Most of the "14 Gangsters" voted against enforcement first, in addition to some "Gangster wannabees". Lott did not even vote. Real leadership Trent.
Warner doesn't care. Man's been senile since Reagan was President.
Craig suprises me
gpapa,
Thanks for posting the list.
Yeah, he does seem to have that 'no one at the wheel' way about him.
"The objective is, on the one hand, protect our borders; and, on the other hand, never lose sight of the thing that makes America unique which is, we're a land of immigrants and that we're not going to discriminate against people," Bush said.
No Mr. Bush: we're a land of immigrants who came here LEGALLY!!!
" There's some real surprises (to me, anyway!) there - Shelby and Lugar in particular."
Should be no surprise there, Lugar has supported every amnesty bill since the 1986 one. Never seen amnesty bill he wouldn't support.
Being from Indiana myself, it was also no surprise that our pretty boy Evan Bayh (D-IN) also voted nay.
The phones at both their offices were so busy today that it was almost impossible to get through. By the reaction of the people answering the phones, it would be easy to guess that all the calls were the same as mine - that is voicing disagreement with the "comprehensive" amnesty program.
Doesn't seem to have done much good calling. The frustration, at least for me, is that after this deed is done and they succeed in legalizing 20 million illegals and then their 40 million family members, is even after they are voted out, their replacements will not undo it.
America becomes less unique and more like other third world dumps when it doesn't control its immigration.We have to stop the flow of illegals before we can discuss the other points.
SHOULDN'T WE FIX THE LEAK AND THEN DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH THE WATER?
HAAA! HAAA! HAAA! HAAA! HAAA!
LOL...
I don't suppose you two have a list of phone numbers and faxes for these despicable so-called Republicans who voted against Isakson's amendment?
Again, here are the traitor Republicans:
Bennett (UT)
Brownback (R-KS),
Chafee (RI),
Coleman (MN),
Collins (ME),
Craig (ID),
DeWine (OH),
Graham (SC),
Hagel (NE),
Lugar (IN),
Martinez (FL),
Murkowski (AK),
Shelby (AL),
Snow (ME),
Specter (PA),
Stevens (AK),
Voinovich (OH),
Warner (VA)
We need to make it easy for everyone to call, email and fax these @ssholes. Anyone got an easy compilation?
Lugar is not a surprise. On this vote and three others thus far he was on the side of those favoring S. 2611. Shelby's votes were mixed.
It's so sad to see a Senator become so pitiful.
oops again, CONSERVATIVES!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.